Truefi Next Steps Topic

Hi all! This is Masa – one of the Truefi Board Foundation Directors and I have been serving as a Director since 2023 (and Re-elected for the calendar year 2024 term).

I write this in light of the recent developments in the vote for Wallfacer to continue with servicing Truefi which was defeated earlier in a close vote. As you can read in Wallfacer’s proposal, as to the end of June 2024, Wallfacer has been involved with various functions of Truefi including technology development and also business development.

First off, I’d like to thank Wallfacer (and the team which has been working with Truefi for a long time) for bringing Truefi for where it is today. As a board member, it has been a pleasure working with them.

Secondly, In order to make a efficient and productive transition, I ask any teams or projects who feel that they can fit into the various function that Wallfacer has previously filled to make proposals. I have already reached out to some on the technology and smart contract development who I have known for a long time, and hoping for them to make proposals soon.

Some items that the board members has discussed informally:

One suggestion also made within our board discussions have been to hire more in-house to avoid any potential conflict of interest, to extent that it is possible, and that is our hope to transition to a sole-dedicated team within months.

Another is Re-starting the Discord server to allow for the community to ask questions and speak out on the DAO and add ideas. Re-invigorating the community around this would be highly beneficial for the DAO.

Lastly (but not last in terms of all the things that can be done) is to add business development manager(s) and community managers(s) as Truefi looks to replace some of the functionality lost by Wallfacer.

The board and myself envision ourselves to much busier in the next coming days to make a transition from Wallfacer’s services. However, for the community to be aware, that this isn’t the end of anything but simply one of the many transitions, forks, ups and downs in crypto.

Any thoughts and suggestions on the follow here would be most appreciated by myself – and I’m also sure also by the rest of the board, and all stakeholders including the DAO, Lenders, and Borrowers on the platform.


Thank you for the insights and your transparency.

It’s an unfortunate circumstances that Wallfacer Labs relationship with Truefi comes to an end, but definitely new proposals could take place even as subsidiary for certain niche services in case needed in some other areas.

Besides this, may I know what are the other potential firms/companies that could take over the project? Could Offchain Labs be one of them due to the recent launches on their ecosystem?

I hope everything works out well for the future of the project and the team.


I think we need to re-vote!

So its tricky because based on Ryan’s statements, the no voter hasn’t given reasons. This was also their first vote and they have unstaked TRU, so it is unclear what they want or how they would react to further funding proposals. Ideally, a ranked choice vote would be an option but I am guessing Tally doesn’t support that. Or just keep trying with some changes and see how this TRU holder reacts.

As for the specifics, Discord had declined significantly before the closure and I don’t foresee it being productive right now.

In-house hiring sounds fine, but in practice how would that be different from hiring Wallfacer? You would still need an executive managing a team and that executive would still need to put in budget proposals.

1 Like

Despite my support for the proposal, I’m not opposed to seeing what other development teams have to offer in place of Wallfacer just moving on to a new proposal before the current one is about to expire.

There are no avenues for fresh development teams to even enter the discourse in this environment, so it’s like a revolving door, without openings for others to enter.

I myself am currently 6 mths into developing a new website for a new business, and my development team and UX/UI website designer would love nothing better than to continue moving forward without pause, “for the benefit of the project” they say, and obviously to keep their funds rolling in. Which i completely appreciate and understand.

However! there are moments when you have to pause, reassess your course, and consider whether the current group is the most dedicated, motivated and have continued passion for the project at hand. Or simply, to be sufficiently influential in this game.

And unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be possible when the same development team receives a new proposal before the old one ends.

Im interested to see who comes to the table now that the door can remain open for a good period of time between proposals👍


If you’re unfamiliar with @TheSkyHopper, please do yourself a service and get to know him. He genuinely believes in the moral integrity of Defi as a whole. He is on @WallfacerLabs Podcast below


Hello all,

I’m Nathan, a Director at the Foundation. We’re at an important turning point in the DAO.

Wallfacer has been doing a stellar job at TrueFi DAO as mentioned be @TheSkyHopper. And there’s still quite some work that they’re doing and can do moving forward. But reading the forums and the proposal, one of the clear reasons for the rejection isn’t the quality of the work but the markup on the services provided.

One thing that this Proposal has brought forward is that the Truefi Board Foundation Directors needs to do a review on the DAO Treasury. Wallfacer has been the main contractor for many years and the community hasn’t been provided a high-level overview on the revenue or costs of the DAO, making it difficult for the community and Directors to have oversight of the DAO’s runway and treasury. This will help create a more competitive environment for service providers to make bids as mentioned by @StrategoHoldings.

In the immediate term, there are only ~4 days left in the Wallfacer contract. There are quite a few roles that Wallfacer are holding that needs to be identified, transitioned and potentially further supported by the team if the community sees fit. For business continuity’s sake, I propose that we extend their contract by at least one month at market rates for a full-time role for Wallfacer as a service provider. cc: @ryan.rodenbaugh


With respect to @vandynathan’s response & @adapt3r’s post: TrueFi Next Steps (Manager’s POV)

  1. We agree a more public analysis of the DAO Treasury is an important next step, but this will clearly take time to (1) form a budget and (2) conclude a competitive bidding process.

Conversations on $ amounts with respect to the proposed contract are highly skewed by market dynamics. It’s anyone’s guess where the token will go, but it’s not in the best interests of the DAO to push downside convexity to a service provider’s PnL.

Rather, a more sustainable top-down budget of TRU tokens to service providers (1) matches DAO assets to their underlying liabilities (OpEx) while (2) providing upside/performance-based incentives for service providers who participate in adding value to the token they’re paid in.

Further, we feel the short-term nature of such contracts should be addressed in light of this issue and because service providers should be incentivized for long-term thinking, to align initiatives to long-term results and not reactionary and aimless trend-following.

  1. We have a number of ongoing initiatives that we are excited to bring to TrueFi, but the lack of an experienced service provider that can give us quick and cogent answers puts these initiatives at risk of being trapped in DAO limbo.

  2. While the Foundation Board formalizes the token budget and competitive bidding process, and we proceed with our key initiatives, we propose a next step of putting a yes/no vote in place on Wallfacer’s contract extension for three months.


Instead of hastily ending Wallfacer’s contract without a clear plan, could we consider splitting their proposal into two 3-month performance-based contracts in a single proposal with a 2 stage vote for each 3mth contract.

This approach allows TrueFi DAO to review other development proposals during the first 3 mth period.

If an attractive proposal emerges, the DAO can evaluate all available options. This will enable the DAO to plan any necessary transition between Wallfacer and a new development team effectively if required.

This will also allow any new development team to demonstrate their participation in the Truefi Forum, perhaps by asking Wallfacer questions during this time period.

Additionally, the DAO and foundation can ask new development team questions about their proposals before the thought of voting takes place.

Also, any enquiries @adapt3r, @Cicada.Partners, @WallfacerLabs, @TrueFi_BOD, @rafaelcosman may have for new development team proposals would be highly effective.

This phased approach may potentially foster a collaborative environment between Wallfacer and any new team, benefiting TrueFi overall.

At the very least, healthy competition will be introduced into the protocol without any drastic moves taking place.

As mentioned by @TheSkyHopper
Re-starting a more professionally administered Discord server so that the community can ask questions of development teams, speak out on the DAO, and provide suggestions. Re-invigorating the community around this would be good for the DAO.


I think there is a need for a transition period given the timing of this given the number of days to the end of the contract.

However, as personal experience, I’m concerned continuously of the American political term of a long Lame Duck period where a previously elected team is moving out, and potentially a new elected team is moving in.

As such, I’d think a 2 month hard extension(s) would be more suitable. I am averaging here a previous opinion of at least 1 month and your suggestion of 3 months.

I think very specific list of work for the period inclusive of readying handover items if handover occurs, and certain completion of immediate project(s) in place (such as a number of Cicada’s current proposed pools - which have been mentioned in another post) on the UI.

Also the number of estimated hours of work for each task taken would also be helpful to assess the economics of any proposal. I think value for money is quite important, not in a way, that someone constantly gets a better or good deal, but one that can be reasonably be equitable for each stakeholder in this protocol.

In a roundabout way, in comparison, for the proposal for directors (myself, Nathan, and Ferengi) in our proposal for directorships, stated the fees for both a monthly retainer, and also additional hours of work that would be done and billed.

For example: as for clear technical (legal) experience as a lawyer imbedded into work, Nathan, as one of the directors, proposed (and this passed of course by DAO votes) a rate of $200 US per hour, or at a full time position - of about $350,000 annually - for a role that is crucial for a protocol dependent on items such as counterparty onboarding, negotiating master loan agreements and other work.

While time if of the essence (as always), the protocol as you say to introduce healthy competition, the protocol must make moves to create an environment that can allow for this, and it starts with intelligent structuring of contracts and agreements, and being smart about paying the right amount that is commensurate with the value provided.


On many of these points, I agree, and the DAO Treasury needs a more balanced approach at holding assets at this point:

  1. As I’ve proposed before is a diversification of TRU treasury - but this should be further expanded. The reality is that the world thinks and spends in dollars (or stablecoins implicitly). As the treasury’s assets are a vast majority in TRU tokens - naturally the paying currency for providers - creates this downward circular problem or convexity. Proper balancing and budgeting with a proper mix of tangible “market risk free” payments would make fee arrangements more equitable. This would have to reflect also in the treasury mix of assets as well. If a service provider is so bullish, they can do use the stablecoins and buy TRU on the open market. We don’t want to fall into an issue where a team says, “if the token falls, then are we still motivated to do the work?”

  2. Contracts at a 6 month turnover without a proper transition portion of the proposal has led to this issue. Combined with the point 1, I would so guess to such variation of pricing of contracts.


It’s well within your power to make a proposal.

However, the proposal you made in the past had zero clear details (who will do the swap? what venue will it happen on), zero onchain actions proposed, and barely met the bar that people could even have a conversation around it. This proposal was realistically too small in scope and wouldn’t cover nearly any major expenses of the DAO.

what specifically are you talking about?

The team at Bastion (where you’re a co-founder) made a great proposal in the past, but last I checked, due to the Foundation (where you’re a director), they had not been able to get onboarded and move ahead.

This is a proposal that would have been great to move ahead with.

Myso recently made a competitive proposal, which I asked you to provide feedback on and you did not.

You and at least one other foundation director are also a part of the proposed liquidity multisig. I was not a part of this, but did join the group recently just to check in on the status and even after a specific ask, there is no action to move ahead from outside of Wallfacer.

So, while I’ve seen you repeatedly emphasize the importance of diversification (agree), you’ve taken no actual action.


This is a baseless concern. We’ve given no reason to think it would be the case.

Sure. 3-months made sense as it aligns with Cicada’s initial term which also ends at the end of September.

No problem on handover items.


Hi @TheSkyHopper,

What is a good point of contact for interested service providers?


1 Like

As I stated in the thread regarding Wallfacer’s recent proposal, TrueFi has been at a standstill for quite some time, and it’s been unclear how to recover. Archblock took a background role in the protocol, leaving it without direction or proper resources to move forward. Wallfacer stepped up to provide leadership and direction in a time of great need. Since then, they’ve executed across a number of different domains, reigniting TrueFi’s flame.

There’s a significant difference between building a business (where we’re at) and scaling a profitable business. It’s easier to scope out roles and create budgets when a business is already moving in a clear direction. Otherwise, it is challenging to do so.

From @TheSkyHopper and @vandynathan, it sounds like the TrueFi Board of Directors intends to offboard Wallfacer due to budgeting concerns. Particularly because

the community hasn’t been provided a high-level overview on the revenue or costs of the DAO, making it difficult for the community and Directors to have oversight of the DAO’s runway and treasury.

I agree with the BoD that Wallfacer could better disclose how they’re allocating the resources they received from TrueFi, but to offboard them because of this sounds extreme.

Has the BoD made their expectations clear? Unclear expectations are a recipe for disaster for all parties involved.

I would be sad to see Wallfacer go, and I know TrueFi would be in disarray without them. This may impact my plans for a service offering, and I assume @Cicada.Partners will face even greater disruption.

Regardless of the decision to retain Wallfacer or offboard them, one thing is clear. The BoD needs to clearly define expectations.

Finally, I think everyone is on board with matching treasury assets to liabilities. I’m sure Wallfacer would prefer that a majority of their contracts be denominated in stablecoins, but simply put, the treasury is out of them. It’s odd that a service provider is expected to build and execute a plan to raise funds for their employer by diluting the token holders. Is this not a responsibility of the Board?

The board and myself envision ourselves to much busier in the next coming days

I look forward to seeing the Board step up and take more responsibility.


You’ve put it right into place, directly to the point, if BoD aren’t satisfied with WallfacerLabs, they should’ve set some clear expectations, if the expectations aren’t met, then they have the right to offboard WallfacerLabs.

I believe the new BoD weren’t satisfied with the work that WL is doing, but there are no concrete numbers to back that decision, Also I’m not sure if someone else will be able to pick up things from where it was left from WLabs in a very short period unless the DAO will be able to attract some other service providers from other major private credit companies.

To be honest and with all objectivity, comparing other projects like ONDO and other Tradefi projects and what they’ve achieved compared to TrueFi, there is still some huge untapped potential, the question here if WL will be able to achieve these expectations or there are other providers who are able to regardless of the funding requested.


Dear Archblock and its board members,


I am reaching out to seek clarification regarding your company’s communication strategy surrounding the TrueFi protocol.

I am perplexed by the recent lack of commentary from your company, its founders, and board members on this matter, given the crucial role TrueFi plays (or played…) in Archblock’s services, as mentioned on “TrueFi - Pioneered by Archblock,” and the frequent mentions of “Truefi Protocol being the underlying technology of Archblock Markeplace” in various communications.

Specifically, my confusion arises from the following points:

:black_small_square:The TrueFi protocol has been tightly linked to Archblock and the TrueFi founders since its beginnings.

:black_small_square:On the website The Truefi protocol is mentioned by Archblock’s as the underlying technologyfor Archblock’sMarkeplace. This says to me Truefi is still highly regarded by Archblock.

:black_small_square:According to interviews conducted as recently as six months ago, the TrueFi Protocol technology is frequently cited as the underlying technology for Archblock Markeplace services.

Furthermore, it is to my knowledge that certain developers connected to Wallfacer Labs are also affiliated with Ethworks and are/were employed by both Wallfacer and Archblock Poland. (If I’m mistaken based on the information obtained from the public, do correct me.)

With all that being said and given Archblock’s close relationships with Truefi, Ethworks and Wallfacer, the absence of any public comment or update on the situation involving TrueFi is perplexing.

Could you provide clarity on why there has been no communication regarding this issue, considering the close connections and the potential impact on all parties involved?

It would be very helpful for everyone involved and tjose who follow your work to understand the present dynamics, not just from the perspective of a Truefi pioneer but also from any personal stance on these connections and changes.

Thank you for addressing this concern. I look forward to your response


Feel free to reach out

1 Like

I’d like to clarify the role of the Truefi Foundation Board in the past.

Truefi’s co-founders had envisioned Truefi to be a DAO and in late 2022/early 2023 made this transition. It was noted that for off chain items crucial to Truefi such as counterparty onboarding (like lenders, borrowers, and service providers) and managing offchain payments were to be managed by the foundation and its board members. These would be actions that would be taken on by decisions voted by the DAO. As such, there is a limited amount of discretionary power the board has.

For on-chain functions, the Board of the Foundation currently has signatures on the multi-sig on the cancellor function.

The board originally consisted of Alex, Raf, and myself. In late 2023, there was an election for board members that saw Alex and Raf step down and Nathan and Ferengi fill the seats.

Looking at the DAO voting history, the proposer address, one can surmise the relationship (at least between addresses consistently) apparent. As a board director, It is only recently, that I have suggested portfolio diversification of the treasury - driven by the simple need of minimum stablecoins to meet expected liabilities.

Since the votes from the staked TRU had voted and denied Wallfacer’s funding request - and has created a need for leadership, has the foundation board directors become more active in the recent few days on forums.


I’d just make the small clarification that no developers are employed by both AB and Wallfacer. Many of the people who work at Wallfacer used to work at Ethworks (which was acquired by AB) or (like myself) worked at TrustToken/Archblock in the past.

I’ve not worked at Archblock (fka trusttoken) since September 2022.

Our two teams remain independent of each other. AB has no legal, financial, or otherwise say or stake in Wallfacer.


Hi @StrategoHoldings

apologies for the delay in getting back. I think Ryan and others have provided a good overview.

Here my thoughts in a nutshell:

TrueFi was created by the Archblock team and then carefully decentralised into the foundation. As part of the decentralisation some ex Archblock and ex Ethworks engineers decided to provide ongoing services to the foundation.

The Archblock team is quite proud of what was created and decided to built the ‘institutional platform’ on top of the TrueFi infrastructure, similar to how anyone can build other applications on top of TrueFi. The mentioned institutional platform is meant for tradfi users that have different demands and requirements than defi centric TrueFi can provide and works in tandem with the system, however the platform does not need to be sitting on top of TrueFi but could use other, similar infrastructures as well.

I strongly believe that TrueFi needs to be managed by the community to grow and thrive and a centralised company should not dictate the direction alone. I understand that Archblock is here to help out if needed and will continue utilizing TrueFi as long as it makes business sense, in the meantime they continue to build other web3 systems and products.

I hope that this overview helps, feel free to ask any clarifying questions and I will answer them if I can.


Please note that I am writing this as a TrueFi enthusiast and not in any official Archblock capacity.

1 Like